Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Well ive played Assassins creed 1 and 2. id like to buy another one. They seem to be both very similar in price. I like the look of the ship battles and such but overall they both look like good games. If you could only buy one which one would you get? Assassins creed 3 or 4? And why?

Thanks Dakka




EDIT: SPELLING

I was all hopeful you were asking about armored core :(

 Melissia wrote:
I was all hopeful you were asking about armored core :(

Well whatcha gotta say about that? Never played Armored Core?!?!!

3 was a bad game.
4 is pretty good.

40KNobz11 wrote:
Never played Armored Core?!?!!

You poor, miserable soul

 Melissia wrote:

40KNobz11 wrote:
Never played Armored Core?!?!!

You poor, miserable soul

Indeed, this made me sad.

Definitely 4. Great game.

 Melissia wrote:

40KNobz11 wrote:
Never played Armored Core?!?!!

You poor, miserable soul

Haha. ill have to look it up.

Alrighty, seems to be a bit of a consensus that Assassins creed black flag is much better

AC3 is the worst AC game they have made, so ya go for 4 which is rather good.

Thanks for the feedback. Black flag seems to be the way to go

When I got into the console scene, finally caving in after more than a decade of refusing to upgrade (the most recent console I had before my 360 was an NES) I swore I wouldn't become one of those video-game fanboys that buys every edition of their addiction, complete with the special editions and their silly plastic face helmets.

And then I played Assassin's Creed.

So, now that I shamefully own the AC movie, some AC novels, and a lovely figurine of Edward Kenway, I can honestly say I've never played an AC game I disliked. They are ALL worth the purchase, especially at used prices.

That being said, there's almost literally no question here. AC 4 is a superior game in every possible way. The in-game stories don't even cross one another, so playing 4 won't spoil 3. There are several meta-story spoilers if you are a fan of what's happening in the 'real' world, so if that's a big draw for you I might go 3 first just for the sake of completeness. (I'm reminded of the Jayden Smith bit from Key and Peele, because I just can't fathom a world where you wouldn't buy BOTH eventually. )

In any event, happy gaming!

The poll speaks for itself.

 Soladrin wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

40KNobz11 wrote:
Never played Armored Core?!?!!

You poor, miserable soul

Indeed, this made me sad.

I went into this assuming it was about Assassin's Creed, and not Armored Core.

And damn it all, I was right -.-


On-topic, I did really enjoy Assassin's Creed 4; 3 was meh, alright.

I too assumed that you were talking about Armoured Core.


Get Assassins Creed 4. 3 has a boring main character, a boring setting and you kill British people. It's just not on.

 welshhoppo wrote:
I too assumed that you were talking about Armoured Core.


Get Assassins Creed 4. 3 has a boring main character, a boring setting and you kill British people. It's just not on.

Yeah, but they all totally have it coming. I mean, wanting people to actually pay taxes? How much more tyrannical can you get?

I'll give AC 3 credit where credit is due - I liked the revolutionary war setting. I just feel that they were given too much of a time constraint to utilise it properly, and maybe were a bit too cautious with what they had you do.

Also, while I appreciate what they were trying to do with Connor, the implementation just fell flat for me. It was a good idea to look at the revolutionary war from that angle, it just wasn't told in a way that I found particularly interesting.

The engine improvements were also pretty obvious to anyone who spent any time in AC 1, 2, Brotherhood or Revelations.

I had plenty of issues with the game though - vertical movement (a hallmark of the series) was massively reduced. Guards had superhuman hearing and there was simply too many of them to let you have fun with the combat. Traversal of the wilderness areas was just far too slow, and the loading screens were horrid (I think one point I counted about 5 10-15 second loading screens for a segment that showed roughly 10 seconds of actual game). Also cutscenes that just happen with no bearing of what you were doing at that time.

Really, it was just a big missed opportunity.

Black Flag, on the other hand, sorted pretty much every problem that AC 3 had while also creating an impressively huge new environment with some great new mechanics. It's odd that their 'B' team seems to make the better games, as they've so far been responsible for Brotherhood and Black Flag..

Jack-O revolution?